ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1666, 3 February 1904, Page 79 (Supplement)

ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOB TRIAL. * At the Magistrate’s Colrt- last week, before Dr A. McArthur,. S.M., Esther tKfibpp, aged seventeen years! for whom Mr Herdman appeared, was charged with disposing of the dead (body of her child . with intent to- conceal the fact that she was the mother.

Chief-Detective McGrath, who prosecuted for the police, detailed the circumstances of the case, much as they were related at the inquest recently held on the body of the child. He pointed out that there would probably be no dispute about the facts, but counsel might contend that they did not establish a prima'fac e case. As to this, ho wished to draw his Worship’s attention to the fact- that section 174 of the Criminal Code, under which the information was laid, had made an important alteration in the laiw, inasmuch as it wac now no longer necessary to prove that concealment was by a secret disposition of the body. Under section 57 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, 1867, this had to be proved, but under the code, any disposition of the dead body, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother was delivered of it, was sufficient. It might be that placing the dead body in the box was not of itself sufficient evidence of concealment of birth, but, according to an eminent authority, “all the attendant circumstances must be taken into consideration!”

The evidence of Dr Henry and Detective Kemp was similar to that given at the inquest. Dr Henry, when under re-examination by the Chief-Detective,, was asked to give his opinion as to the cause of death.

"Witness .replied that the child breathed during birth, but owing to pressure on its body the breathing ceased. Detective McGrath: That is not quitß an answer to the question. If the child had received proper attention at its birth would it, in your opinion, have lived?—Yes.

Vida Chase gave evidence which bore out the testimony sworn-to by heir at the inquest on the body of accused’s child. Witness, .about three days before the child was born, asked accused if “there was anything out -of the common wrong with her.” She replied, “No; nothing in particular.” On me morning of the 27th ult-. she got up and went about her work as usual. 'She seemed ill. About half-past eleven she fainted, and was carried into her bedroom. Later, witness found a bundle in her (witness’s') box,, and questioned accused about what was in it. The girl said a baby was rolled up in the clothes. Witness did nut examine the bundle. Dr Henry arrived shortly afterwards. Cross-examined by Mr Herdman: Witness stated v that in the evening the girl stated she put the Child in the box because she knew that witness would discover it. Accused had a box of her own in the room. When witness came home with her husband about 1 a.m. on the 27th ult., she asked accused, who was in bed. if she would have any supper. Accused then seemed t-o be in her usual health. Witness said that the girt, after the child was found, made no attempt to conceal airy of the facts. Mr Herdman, in addressing the Court on- the. girl’s behalf, citedf the cose of Regina v. Sleep, in support of his contention that placing the child in a box was not concealment. He . also emphasised the fact, disclosed in evidence, that accused did not expect her confinement for a month. She knew that putting the body in the box meant discovery after a few hours. He submitted that the charge should be dismissed. Detective McGrath, in reply, said t-liat counsel had not put the case of Regina v. Sleep correctly. In that case the child had been left in an open box, and as soon as the mother was asked about her state she admitted that she had been confined, and told the surgeon where the child was. In the present case accused denied that she had been confined until after the child was found. In the case of Regina v. Cook, defending -counsel had cited the Sleep case in support of an argument similar to that put forward by Mr Herdman, but the Judge who tried the case held that all the circumstances had to be taken into and the prisoner was subsequently fouiid guilty by the jury. '-vf'r, . Hi ft Worship committed accused for trial. Bail was allowed —-self in £SO, and one surety of £SO.